REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Obama is doing a job.

POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Thursday, July 2, 2009 03:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8732
PAGE 1 of 3

Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:02 AM

OPPYH


I'll have to eat my words. Being an adamant supporter of Hillary Clinton. It was quite a tough pill to swallow when Obama beat her for the democratic front runner.

That being said, I admire most of his ideas. Although it may take a while to see most come to fruition. Just give him time.

It's better to have many ideas, and get half of them realized, then no ideas except for a war in Iraq.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:32 AM

CHRISISALL


I wouldn't say "great", but he's still the best choice we had.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:38 AM

FREMDFIRMA


I disagree.

I rate him as about 40% below minimum acceptable parameters.

While that's better than anyone who ran against him might have gotten, it's still a piss poor job in my eyes.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:06 AM

OPPYH


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I disagree.

I rate him as about 40% below minimum acceptable parameters.

While that's better than anyone who ran against him might have gotten, it's still a piss poor job in my eyes.

-F


"Piss poor"? How so? He has a lot on his plate. It's going to take some time. Our country is damaged. You can't just snap your fingers, and expect it to be be all better.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:08 AM

OPPYH


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I wouldn't say "great", but he's still the best choice we had.


The laughing Chrisisall



He certainly isn't an idle president. He hasn't even been in office for a year yet. You can't expect "change" in a 6 month period can you?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:11 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


My beef with him is that he's waffling on things he has absolutely no need to waffle on. There ARE things he can do, and he just isn't, in too many cases, or is doing half-assed sorry compromises on them when there's no need. He was voted in with a pretty solid mandate ("Change"), and he's got an all-but-filibuster-proof majority, and all we're getting is more of the same.

I supported him, I *STILL* support him, but I'm more than a little disappointed at the same time. It doesn't mean I wish I'd voted differently; it means I wish Obama had done some things differently.

And yes, Oppyh, he has a lot on his plate, and he was handed a shit sandwich as well - but that's never been an acceptable excuse. It wasn't acceptable for the previous administration, so I'm not giving Obama a pass just because it's a tough job. It's SUPPOSED to be a tough job! Everyone knows that going in, or at least they damned well should!

Quote:


He certainly isn't an idle president. He hasn't even been in office for a year yet. You can't expect "change" in a 6 month period can you?



Well, no... he isn't idle, but being seen a lot and looking busy isn't the same thing as actually DOING something. Anyone who's ever worked in an office can attest to that.

And if you've ever been promoted into a new position or hired on in a new job where you have responsibility to make things happen, you know that you have a short "golden time" where you're given a whole lot of leeway to enact new policies and try new things - if they work, you're a hero, and if they don't, well... you tried something new. After a bit, though, you're no longer the new hotshot, so your ideas don't have the same luster to them, and you're just another guy showing up for work and taking home a check.

Obama's been in less than six months, but it's often the first hundred days that set the tone, and where the most sweeping changes can take place. My fear is that Obama squandered his political capital by waffling, and when he decides he wants to really DO something, it may well be too late; the people and the Congress may no longer be under his spell by then.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:19 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Oh I am well aware - remember, I was the one who said we should hand him a mop immediately after he took the oath of office.

The bailouts were a jackass move, as is not at LEAST cutting back (preferably off) foreign aid, most especially to our so-called-ally Israel, his healthcare plan is a freakin disaster, and he was a dimwit to let Hillary write it cause of her connections with that industry...
(No matter where the trail "officially" leads, Hillary wrote it, believe it.)

Not getting us the hell OUT of Afghanistan and Iraq, something which could be done in 72 hours under the worst-case GOTH plan devised by Gates.

Failure to slash a lot of really obvious waste and pork in the budget despite a massive deficit and enough political cred to have gotten away with it.

And most importantly, A number ONE priority in my opinion, not putting a fucking leash on the goddamn alphabet boys even if it takes military intervention to do it.

And I am a little upset at the non rightwing media for not being critical enough, but he's got them over a barrel with some of the serious crap they did (pay for play editorials, fake "news" stories, direct shilling, etc) to sychophantically suck the bushcock, so they HAVE to suck up to him or face the hammer - slick, smart move, but I don't have to like it, no.

He needs to step up his game if he wants to convince me he's not just another mouthpiece for the slimy chicago political machine dating back to the days of Tammany Hall.

There's few enough folk in our Gov at all that impress me as respectable folk - Gates, for example, although I am sorely pissed over letting that murderous asswipe McChrystal take charge, seniority or not - and in order to join that Obamalamadingdong is gonna have to come up with prettier rabbits out of that hat than he already has done.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:23 AM

OPPYH


Obama's health care reform is a HUGE step in the right direction. This is no small, petty plan to please the a few people. This will change America for the better(much better).

This is something that has needed fixing since the 80's. Surely you agree with this.
It proves he is going to try to re-structure America out of Iron, not cardboard.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:31 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by OPPYH:
Obama's health care reform is a HUGE step in the right direction. This is no small, petty plan to please the a few people. This will change America for the better(much better).

This is something that has needed fixing since the 80's. Surely you agree with this.
It proves he is going to try to re-structure America out of Iron, not cardboard.



Thing is, there ISN'T *a* single, all-encompassing plan that I've seen yet. There's everybody and their lobbyist writing their own damn plan, and none of them mesh or jibe with each other so far. And NOBODY seems to give a rat's ass about bringing the single-payer option to the table. Lots of them agree that it would be a better system, but claim that they don't have the votes, even before trying to put it up to a vote or talking about it in committee or anywhere else.

You know what we're going to get? We're going to get "universal" health care in the sense that Massachusetts got it under Romney: A law that says you have to carry health insurance, but no incentive for the insurance industry to make such health insurance decent in scope or affordable in practice for huge numbers of people. In other words, you'll pay more than you do now, your employer will pay less, and you'll likely get worse coverage than whatever measly plan you may already have. Unless you're poor - then you can get a waiver and opt out of coverage. Gosh, pinch me now; I must be dreaming...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:33 AM

OPPYH


Quote:


Obama's been in less than six months, but it's often the first hundred days that set the tone, and where the most sweeping changes can take place. My fear is that Obama squandered his political capital by waffling, and when he decides he wants to really DO something, it may well be too late; the people and the Congress may no longer be under his spell by then.

Mike



The first hundred days do set the tone, and he has made some poor choices in areas that have no relevance to helping our nation. But I feel he is learning a lot as he goes. It is a monumental job to change things for the better, but I think he will do just that.
I'm almost positive he will be elected for a second term. He has plenty of time to fix America.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:41 AM

OPPYH


Quote:



You know what we're going to get? We're going to get "universal" health care in the sense that Massachusetts got it under Romney: A law that says you have to carry health insurance, but no incentive for the insurance industry to make such health insurance decent in scope or affordable in practice for huge numbers of people. In other words, you'll pay more than you do now, your employer will pay less, and you'll likely get worse coverage than whatever measly plan you may already have. Unless you're poor - then you can get a waiver and opt out of coverage. Gosh, pinch me now; I must be dreaming...

Mike

I swear to God, that is the scariest assessment of a health care plan I've ever heard. Crap, if that's how it plays out I'll move to Canada so damn fast.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 10:37 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by OPPYH:
I swear to God, that is the scariest assessment of a health care plan I've ever heard. Crap, if that's how it plays out I'll move to Canada so damn fast.



Ayup. And I've been following this pretty closely. Congress is declaring it "universally agreed" that this is the way to go - meaning, of course, that the health care industry and insurance lobbyists agree. Obama campaigned against this approach, but recently stated he's ready to reverse his position and sign whatever congress dishes up (there's a shocker). Unless he reads my remarkably eloquent and persuasive letter soon, it's exactly what we're going to get.

It's not that Obama isn't changing things fast enough. As is all too common with modern politics, doing nothing would be better than most of the "changes" he's acting on.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 10:41 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You know what we're going to get? We're going to get "universal" health care in the sense that Massachusetts got it under Romney: A law that says you have to carry health insurance, but no incentive for the insurance industry to make such health insurance decent in scope or affordable in practice for huge numbers of people.


I hope not- I live in Mass, & if that's the plan for the country, then God help us all.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 11:09 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by OPPYH:
I swear to God, that is the scariest assessment of a health care plan I've ever heard. Crap, if that's how it plays out I'll move to Canada so damn fast.


Then better get to sandbaggin it, quick...

Cause this is EXACTLY how we got stuck with the ruinous, useless, complete fucking scam that is auto insurance.

Having been screwed near unto death (and this is NOT rhetoric, but let's not go there now) by both industries in the name of profit, I have a dim view of the idea of "insurance" to begin with, as in essence and actual practice it's not much more than a protection racket once it's legally mandatory.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 1:49 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:



You know what we're going to get? We're going to get "universal" health care in the sense that Massachusetts got it under Romney: A law that says you have to carry health insurance, but no incentive for the insurance industry to make such health insurance decent in scope or affordable in practice for huge numbers of people. In other words, you'll pay more than you do now, your employer will pay less, and you'll likely get worse coverage than whatever measly plan you may already have. Unless you're poor - then you can get a waiver and opt out of coverage. Gosh, pinch me now; I must be dreaming...

Mike

I swear to God, that is the scariest assessment of a health care plan I've ever heard. Crap, if that's how it plays out I'll move to Canada so damn fast.



That's what has me so damn scared about Obama. You know me - well, as much as we can "know" each other on a fan board, I guess. You know I was one of Obama's biggest supporters around here. You know I still like the guy; he's charming as hell. I'd LOVE for him to really do some great things for this country; hell, just being elected President is a pretty amazing thing, really, when you think about it.

But some of his weak-willed compromises aren't compromises to political parties or compromises in the interest of bipartisanship - they're compromises purely driven by greed and profit, and they're not designed to actually HELP the American people in any conceivable way, but rather to help the ultra-rich and the corporations once again line their pockets at the expense of the working class.

THAT is the thing I fear most about Obama. I don't worry that he's a socialist - I worry that he's more capitalist than anyone can imagine, and that he's only selling us the image of the socialist reformer.



Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 5:04 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
this is EXACTLY how we got stuck with the ruinous, useless, complete fucking scam that is auto insurance.


Absolutely.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 5:05 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

THAT is the thing I fear most about Obama. I don't worry that he's a socialist - I worry that he's more capitalist than anyone can imagine, and that he's only selling us the image of the socialist reformer.




Positively.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 5:33 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!



Obama's Jewish Polish advisor Zbigniew Brezinski founded AllCIAduh, hanging out with CIA employee USAma Bin Laden in Pakistan

There were several superior candidates for president in 2008, who were actually US citizens. McCain wasn't one of them. Neither was Billary "Clinton" Blythe Rockefeller.

Millions of people rate Hussein Obama Soetoro a big fat ZERO. Actully negative, since he's not even president and is an illegal alien traitor. He spent onver $1-million in court refusing to show his birth certificate. "Obama" represents the total decapitation of USA by the NWO, something Jr Bush tried to do on 9.11 but failed.
http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1

Every person who supports Hussein Obama Soetoro is also guilty of treason, which carries a death penalty, one way or another. Either by arrest, trial and sentence, or by civil war, or by genocide.

If you want to know what "his" socialized medical cartel will be like, ask the military. I've been waiting on a VA doctor appointment for 13 years. The only VA doc in TN that does private radiation testing is from Pakistan. Over 700,000 US soldiers in the 18-year Iraq War are now paid disability pensions, mostly due to sabotaged vaccines. Try living on $100/month, which is more than most disabled soldiers are paid.

Quote:




"Obama is a radical Communist. He's going to destroy this country, and we're either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."
-Ambassador Alan Keyes PhD, candidate for president in 2008
www.archive.org/details/ObamaInauguralMashup/
http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1
http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com

"Yes we can, thank you Satan."
-President Hussein Obama, acceptance speech in Chicago, November 4, 2008
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37513&m=688607
MP3: www.archive.org/details/ObamaInauguralMashup/




http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 5:49 PM

SERGEANTX





SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 10:57 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I wouldn't say "great", but he's still the best choice we had.

He wasn't the best choice we had. He was the best choice the two party system let us have.

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]

[audience gasps in terror]

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.

Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.

Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]

-- "Treehouse of Horror VII"


I think the last election in Peru allowed Peruvians to choose amongst something like 42 candidates for president. Then they had a run-off election amongst the top 3 candidates. Sure, the assholes always end up winning, but at least there is some semblance of choice.

We don't even have that anymore.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 21, 2009 11:47 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by OPPYH:
He certainly isn't an idle president. He hasn't even been in office for a year yet. You can't expect "change" in a 6 month period can you?



Except NOT doing anything (no change) would have been better than what he's done. The complaint is NOT that he isn't improving things fast enough. The complaint is that he is making things worse than before!

Let's recap, shall we? (Read the following and imagine how you would feel if it were McCain who were doing it instead of Obama. Incidentally, the following quotations come from fellow liberals.)

Quote:

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley: "Well it can't get any worse: extreme executive privilege arguments in court, withholding of abuse photos, adoptions of indefinite detentions without trial, restarting military commissions, and blocking any torture investigation. Welcome to Bush 2.0..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/a-war-on-terror-by-any-ot_b_
204887.html




1. Sovereign Immunity: Instead of reversing the broad surveillance powers Bush enacted ("state secrets"), or at least not changing them, Obama has added a new executive power called "sovereign immunity." That's right. His DOJ defends Bush policies, and then adds one worse.

Quote:

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html



2. Secrecy Law. Instead of opposing it, or at least abstaining from it, Obama is supporting a bill that would keep detainee abuse photos from being released. Thankfully, his fellow Democrats are opposing him and blocking this bill.

Quote:

The photo suppression bill is an abomination that is reminiscent of the worst Bush-era excesses. It gives the executive branch the power to withhold an entire category of information from public scrutiny without any review. This law is Example A of the theory of the Presidency that says citizens should just trust the benevolent executive to do the right thing. Even if you oppose releasing some of the photos, I don't see why you would want to give the White House the power to unilaterally decide what's best. It says a lot about the Congress that members are willing to give Obama this kind of power. It says a lot about Obama that he supports this bill.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/06/house-liberals-trying-block-ob
ama-backed-foia-exemption-torture-photos




Quote:

Exactly. We already have a law in place -- FOIA -- that is incredibly permissive in what it allows the government to keep secret... But passing a new law because you don't want to abide by the old one and because courts have rejected the President's claimed powers was one of the most defining and abusive strategies of the Bush administration....

The issue is not whether disclosure of these photographs will produce value... The issue is whether or not you believe in transparency in government (a major plank of Obama's campaign), and whether you want the President to have the unilateral, unreviewable power to simply decree that the 4o-year-old FOIA law need not be complied with when it comes to all photographic evidence of detainee abuse.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/05/photos/index.html



3. Indefinite preventative detention. Instead of releasing Gitmo detainees as he campaigned, or at least detaining them without good cause as Bush did, Obama is instituting a new policy to justify such detentions and carry them out indefinitely.

Quote:

It's important to be clear about what "preventive detention" authorizes. It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding. That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, "preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally "dangerous" by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they "expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden" or "otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans"). That's what "preventive" means: imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be "combatants."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention
/index.html




4. Proposal to allow tortured detainees to confess to capital crimes. Instead of enacting due process for detainees, or at least do nothing let them sit where they are, Obama is supporting a proposal that would allow our government to torture--ahem, intensely interrogate--detainees, accept their confessions under "intense interrogation," and then kill them based on said confession without a trial.

Quote:

Liane Hansen has a little chat with "Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who was in charge of the ground forces in Iraq when some of those techniques were used at the Abu Ghraib prison." During the interview Sanchez relates the following:

"We got a little bit of an insight into what they [CIA] were doing when they did drop off what came to be known as Iceman at Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003....we clearly understood that they were using some very, very aggressive techniques, and in fact had wound up with this man dead in the course of an interrogation....he was brought to Abu Ghraib and handed off to my conventional forces there at the prison, and we eventually wound up repatriating him to his family to be taken care of and interred."

HOLY CRAP! Sanchez is describing the fact that the CIA and US forces tortured a man to death. Hansen doesn't express shock, disgust, surprise...anything. ...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/06/nyt/index.html



There are more. But these are just a few examples.

No changes are better than Obama's changes. Again, imagine if these were McCain's changes, would you cut him the same slack, or would you be decrying him as worse than Bush?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 22, 2009 2:37 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


ha....

You won't even recognize America in 4 years. And watch gas shoot up to eight bucks a gallon after he gets reelected. Obama is a piece of shit. He's nothing but Bush Jr. with blackface on.

Name one thing he and his Democratic Congress hasn't reneged on since his campaign.

He's a LIAR!

That's what you idiots get for voting an Illinois politician into the White House.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 22, 2009 6:20 AM

SERGEANTX


In the interest of clarity, this site seems to track things relatively accurately:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

It's not quite as bad as some of us pretend, but it's hardly the sweeping change that was supposedly his mandate.


SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 22, 2009 7:05 AM

SERGEANTX


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hGNoJqVBrCNNa8y75cZS
59Go96FgD98VMGMO0"]http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...Go96FgD98VMGMO0

Quote:

No health care? Expect a requirement to get it
By LIZ SIDOTI – 5 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Don't have health insurance? Don't want to pay for it? Too bad.
It's looking like President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress are going to require you to pick up the bill.
In Washington-speak, it's called an individual mandate — or a requirement that people who don't already have health insurance to purchase it, much like most states require drivers to have automobile insurance.
Obama long has been wary of the idea, arguing that people cannot be required to buy coverage if they can't afford it. His plan during the presidential primary didn't require all adults to have coverage, only children. He and then-rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who backed a universal requirement, sparred repeatedly over the issue.
Now in the White House, Obama has set in motion steps toward his broad goal of making health care more affordable, improving quality of care and expanding coverage. Says Obama: "We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children."
He largely has left it to the House and Senate to work it out.
But in recent weeks, Congress signaled that legislation overhauling health care was all but certain to require that people have insurance. Of course, details about how to implement such a mandate must be worked out — and there are many — but the overall concept increasingly seems on track to be included in any sweeping health care overhaul that makes its way to Obama's desk.
The president's support for the requirement is recent — and conditional.
In a letter in early June, he told key Senate Democrats writing legislation that he was willing to consider their ideas for "shared responsibility," requiring people to have insurance with employers sharing in the cost. "But," he added, "I believe if we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable."
He went a smidgen further last week.
"I am confident in our ability to give people the ability to get insurance," he told doctors. Thus, he said: "I am open to a system where every American bears responsibility for owning health insurance, so long as we provide a hardship waiver for those who still can't afford it."
Obama also indicated that if he were giving a little, insurance companies eager for new customers must as well, and called on them to stop denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Said Obama: "The days of cherry-picking who to cover and who to deny — those days are over."
Even before the president took office in January, the insurance industry, which killed former President Bill Clinton's health care overhaul, indicated it was willing to accept that trade-off, making a mandate all the more likely.
Democrats have opposed such a mandate in previous years, fearing it would disadvantage the poor. In fact, it was Republicans, including 1996 presidential nominee and former Sen. Bob Dole, who pushed the idea in the 1990s.
These days, it's hard to find many opposed to a requirement.
Insurers like it:
A mandate means a ready pool of new customers. Businesses back it: They say employers alone shouldn't shoulder the responsibility to pay for coverage. Hospitals cheer such a provision: They're tired of absorbing the costs of the uninsured seeking medical attention. Doctors support it: They want to stop providing services for free. And advocates for the poor are conditionally favorable: They want adequate subsidies and so-called hardship waivers.


This particular part infuriates me. It's the epitome of "corporatism". Clearly, the only entities that matter in this debate are large organized interest groups. And the fucking press just falls in line with this shit.

I heard a program on NPR last week, with a mouthpiece for the Massachusetts insurance slavery system bragging about what a stunning success it was. But every single caller was from Massachusetts and complaining, stating that their rates had gone up, their coverage had gone down a they were now chained to insurance by law. Insurers, Businesses, Hospitals, Doctors and Advocates all get what they want. The rest of us get "hardship waivers". It's my hope people raise hell about this. Maybe the press will get a clue (but I doubt it, they're getting cash which is better). If we roll over on this, if we let yet another corporate fucking happen with nary a whimper, I'll consider it the final nail in the coffin of any kind of "American spirit".

Quote:

Even so, at least some conservative Republicans likely will argue that Obama is stepping on individual rights by mandating coverage, expanding government's hand in the health care industry and creating a pathway to socialized medicine. Just last week, congressional conservatives offered their own plan. It would not mandate people to carry insurance.
But even Republicans say a requirement is likely.
"I believe there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates," says Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. The reason is fairness, he says: "Everybody has some health insurance costs, and if you aren't insured, there's no free lunch. Somebody else is paying for it."
It's support like this that's meant Obama has been able to shift positions with seemingly little political peril.
"Because there's a consensus among both the stakeholders and the legislators that this is the direction to go, the president essentially doesn't have a reason not to support it," said Judy Feder, a senior health care official under Clinton who now is at the liberal Center for American Progress.
Still, Congress must figure out how to enforce such a mandate, eligibility for a so-called hardship waiver, tax credits so people can afford health care and subsidies for the poor to help them buy coverage.
House and Senate committees are in the midst of haggling over such issues, and independent analysts expect a final bill to emerge that includes both waivers and sliding-scale subsidies to meet Obama's conditions
"There's no doubt that to be acceptable, it has to be regarded as fair and that you're not requiring people to buy insurance that's not affordable to them," said John Holahan, the Urban Institute's health policy center director.
Any plan is likely to be modeled after one in Massachusetts, which required that virtually everyone have health insurance or face tax penalties.
People who were deemed able to afford health insurance but who refused to buy it during 2007 faced losing a personal tax exemption and the prospect of monthly fines. The law exempted anyone who made less than the federal poverty level and gave them free care. And, those making up to three times the poverty level could get subsidize plans. Businesses with 11 or more full-time employees who refused to offer insurance also faced fines.



Any of you remember a few years back telling me I was paranoid and/or alarmist in predicting this?

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 22, 2009 2:47 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
In the interest of clarity, this site seems to track things relatively accurately:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

It's not quite as bad as some of us pretend, but it's hardly the sweeping change that was supposedly his mandate.



I beg to differ.

As an example, here is what they said about his promise of habeas corpus.

Quote:

Still, Obama is essentially saying that some prisoners will face neither courts nor military commissions of any sort, but will be imprisoned anyway. This is not a good sign for him keeping his promise on habeas corpus for enemy combatants. So we rate the promise Stalled.


Uh, hello?! Imprisoned anyway? That isn't a stalled habeas corpus. That is a broken promise, period. These folks are rating his broken promises with a great deal of wishful thinking.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 22, 2009 3:00 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Oh, come on now, CTS - I'm sure the process is just stalled. And I've no doubt they'll get around to habeas in... oh... 40 to 50 years.


Yeah, for anyone who couldn't detect the sarcasm, I'm pretty damned disgusted with Obama's treatment of detainees. If you don't have evidence - hell, in this day and age, if you can't even MANUFACTURE some decent evidence - you need to damn well let the bastards go.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 22, 2009 3:16 PM

SERGEANTX


Fair enough guys. I missed that one.

I think there are two aspects surrounding this issue that Obama didn't count on.

At this point I think he's mostly worried about the fallout of releasing prisoners who have been tortured. Are they going to promise not to tell anyone about it? No, they'll sing it from the rooftops and fill the tabloids (and the rare MSM media with the balls to publish it) with stories of US depravity.

There's also probably plenty of evidence against some of these guys. But substantiating it would reveal the deplorable lengths we went to to get it. They'd also likely spill the beans on spying that the could kick off nasty responsess, here and abroad. Obama want's neither on his watch.

Also, he's a lying piece of shit. But you know, "politician".

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:25 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
At this point I think he's mostly worried about the fallout of releasing prisoners who have been tortured. Are they going to promise not to tell anyone about it? No, they'll sing it from the rooftops and fill the tabloids (and the rare MSM media with the balls to publish it) with stories of US depravity.



It boils down to accountability, period. Everybody (except maybe Rap and folks like him) knows we did a bad thing in torturing folks. Now with any bad deed, the question is do we hide it or do we own up to it? This is elementary morality, the kind of lecture you give to an 8 year old who broke Mrs. Johnson's window.

The norm in our society is to tell the 8 year old to confess the deed to Mrs. Johnson, apologize deeply, and pay for the damage. It is the mature thing to do.

The message Obama is sending by hiding the torturers from accountability is this: Torture is justified and sanctioned, if not legal, in the USA. We will not denounce it, we will not apologize, and we certainly will not make things right.

What do you think harms our international image more? Allowing details of torture to go public with an apology for the former administration, or protecting the torturers and continuing to detained the tortured? Obama had a golden window to make things right, to let people know we are under new management, and he peed on it.

He did exactly what everyone thought McCain would have done.

Come to think of it, his health care reform is going the same direction too--doing what everyone thought McCain would have done.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:15 AM

SERGEANTX




SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:17 AM

CANTTAKESKY


ROFL!!!!

I love it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:01 AM

JONGSSTRAW






Healthcare is ...(cough, cough) very important!


On another note....what's he going to do with the increasing North Korean taunts aimed at him? Obama's taken more shit from Kim Jong Il than he has from anyone else. We've got a ship tracking their cargo ship to Myanmar. We have UN approval "to ask them to board", but not to actually board. If they just say no, will he go ahead and board it anyhow? Should he? What about the July 4th missile surprise Kim has announced? There are people on TV talking about war. Kim has already declared the 1953 cease-fire truce void, so technically we are at war. What if his missiles actually hit something, here or in S. Korea or Japan? Then what? What if China backs N. Korea like they'd likely do? What could/would Obama do?

And speaking of July 4th, the White House says it's still a go to have Iranian officials invited to participate and enjoy the holiday. I can just imagine the gentle arm nudging while chompin' on their corn on the cob....So Ali, buddy, if you release all the journalists, students, and professors that you just beat to a pulp and locked up, and you promise to only shoot people in the head "off camera"...then we can talk about a deal with your nuclear weapons program. Hey, pass the cole slaw.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:12 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Healthcare is ...(cough, cough) very important!



I agree with you - tobacco should be outlawed! Cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, snuff, pipe tobacco, roll-your-own... they should all be listed as controlled substances, and sold only by prescription! Adults should NEVER be allowed to make their own decisions or accept responsibility for their own actions, especially when it comes to things like tobacco and alcohol!

Quote:


On another note....what's he going to do with the increasing North Korean taunts aimed at him?



Probably about the same thing that's been done with the "North Korean taunts" for the past 50 years or so.

Quote:


Obama's taken more shit from Kim Jong Il than he has from anyone else.



Actually, Dick Cheney has talked more un-American crap than anyone else in the world since January 20, 2009. Kim-Jong Il is a rank amateur in comparison.

Quote:


We've got a ship tracking their cargo ship to Myanmar. We have UN approval "to ask them to board", but not to actually board. If they just say no, will he go ahead and board it anyhow?



To do so would be tantamount to an act of war against North Korea, just as much as if THEY did that to one of OUR ships in international waters.

Quote:

Should he? What about the July 4th missile surprise Kim has announced?


What about it? What did we do about it last year when it happened? Is there a reason we should do more this year?

Quote:

There are people on TV talking about war.


There always are. But it doesn't mean that war is always the answer.

Quote:

Kim has already declared the 1953 cease-fire truce void, so technically we are at war.


As we have been for the last 56 years. Technically, we've been "at war" with North Korea since the cease-fire was agreed to.

Quote:


What if his missiles actually hit something, here or in S. Korea or Japan? Then what? What if China backs N. Korea like they'd likely do? What could/would Obama do?



What if you get hit by a car getting out of your bed? What if you get food poisoning from your Pop-Tarts? What if? What if? What if?

As for what Obama would likely do, I'm sure he'd respond appropriately. I'm not at all convinced that China would back North Korea. We're a bit more important to them than Kim is, I'm afraid. For all their shared communist ideology, the Chinese really DO seem to like American cashy money quite a bit.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:20 AM

JONGSSTRAW


I think it's a bit more serious than you'd like to portray it. Kim's ramped this up about as far as he can go. I hope you're right.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:27 AM

CHRISISALL


Kim & Ahmadinajhad are really one guy- ever see the two of them together at the same time?!


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:00 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
To do so would be tantamount to an act of war against North Korea, just as much as if THEY did that to one of OUR ships in international waters.


Just don't fly an ensign and make no mention of country of origin.

Then it'll be just an act of piracy.
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
As for what Obama would likely do, I'm sure he'd respond appropriately. I'm not at all convinced that China would back North Korea. We're a bit more important to them than Kim is, I'm afraid. For all their shared communist ideology, the Chinese really DO seem to like American cashy money quite a bit.


China these days is Leninist-Corporatist these days. China allows private Corporations, which precludes communism since there's no private ownership let alone corporations under Communism, but requires communist party officials to have a usually controlling interest on the board. There are exceptions to that rule, like the 'special economic zones' such as Hong Kong. It's pretty surely a form of Corporatism, with Government control of Private Corporations, as opposed to the US form of Private Corporation in control of Government.

Anyway, whether China backs the US or North Korea will most likely depend on who seems to be the aggressor. China has aspirations, and it also has enough of the US public and private debt to really hurt the US economy if it so chose. If the US was seen as the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage, to show itself willing to square up against the big guys in defence of a smaller weaker nation. It would help to garner political capital through out the region, and among many of the US-unfriendly states (especially Oil producers) that China has been trying to curry favour with, such as Iran. If North Korea were the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage and prove itself a friend to the states with all the inherent economic privilege that could bring.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:02 AM

OPPYH


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
ha....

You won't even recognize America in 4 years. And watch gas shoot up to eight bucks a gallon after he gets reelected. Obama is a piece of shit. He's nothing but Bush Jr. with blackface on.

Name one thing he and his Democratic Congress hasn't reneged on since his campaign.

He's a LIAR!

That's what you idiots get for voting an Illinois politician into the White House.



I didn't vote for Obama, but he's in charge so you'd better get used to it. And while we are at it....what is the key? You call those who voted for Obama "idiots", without any retaliation whatsoever. It appears you have truly achieved RWED invulnerability. Both sides seem to adore you. Are you a vampire? Because everyone either wants you for a friend, or a fuck. You ever thought about running for world domination? with none to oppose you it would probably be pretty easy.

Good luck.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:43 AM

WASHNWEAR


Quote:

Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
ha....

You won't even recognize America in 4 years. And watch gas shoot up to eight bucks a gallon after he gets reelected. Obama is a piece of shit. He's nothing but Bush Jr. with blackface on.

Name one thing he and his Democratic Congress hasn't reneged on since his campaign.

He's a LIAR!

That's what you idiots get for voting an Illinois politician into the White House.



I didn't vote for Obama, but he's in charge so you'd better get used to it. And while we are at it....what is the key? You call those who voted for Obama "idiots", without any retaliation whatsoever. It appears you have truly achieved RWED invulnerability. Both sides seem to adore you. Are you a vampire?



I think one of the "keys" in this case is that Jack doesn't have a rep for being a Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Bush-right-or-wrong cheerleader. If memory serves he's expressed views from "both sides of the aisle."

And just for clarity's sake, that's not a jab disguised as a response. For my own part, I was Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Obama-right-or-wrong cheerleader (one of Jack's aforementioned "idiots", I guess) 'til a few months after he took office. And now, like many others, I've got the hangover to prove it. It's not that I completely regret letting him take me home...but he looked a lot better last night at the bar.



donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:23 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Quote:

Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
ha....

You won't even recognize America in 4 years. And watch gas shoot up to eight bucks a gallon after he gets reelected. Obama is a piece of shit. He's nothing but Bush Jr. with blackface on.

Name one thing he and his Democratic Congress hasn't reneged on since his campaign.

He's a LIAR!

That's what you idiots get for voting an Illinois politician into the White House.



I didn't vote for Obama, but he's in charge so you'd better get used to it. And while we are at it....what is the key? You call those who voted for Obama "idiots", without any retaliation whatsoever. It appears you have truly achieved RWED invulnerability. Both sides seem to adore you. Are you a vampire?



I think one of the "keys" in this case is that Jack doesn't have a rep for being a Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Bush-right-or-wrong cheerleader. If memory serves he's expressed views from "both sides of the aisle."

And just for clarity's sake, that's not a jab disguised as a response. For my own part, I was Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Obama-right-or-wrong cheerleader (one of Jack's aforementioned "idiots", I guess) 'til a few months after he took office. And now, like many others, I've got the hangover to prove it. It's not that I completely regret letting him take me home...but he looked a lot better last night at the bar.



donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?



Thanks, WNW, for a just about perfect analogy. That's pretty much the same feeling I've got, and I too was an Obamaniac.

As for 6ix, I tend to not take him very seriously most of the time, and he IS an equal-opportunity offender; he doesn't care much for the Bushies either.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:25 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


Anyway, whether China backs the US or North Korea will most likely depend on who seems to be the aggressor. China has aspirations, and it also has enough of the US public and private debt to really hurt the US economy if it so chose. If the US was seen as the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage, to show itself willing to square up against the big guys in defence of a smaller weaker nation. It would help to garner political capital through out the region, and among many of the US-unfriendly states (especially Oil producers) that China has been trying to curry favour with, such as Iran. If North Korea were the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage and prove itself a friend to the states with all the inherent economic privilege that could bring.



Couldn't agree more with that assessment, Citizen. Seems the only real way for the U.S. to "win" in this situation is by simply refusing to play, or waiting for North Korea to overplay its hand.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:38 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I was Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Obama-right-or-wrong cheerleader (one of Jack's aforementioned "idiots", I guess) 'til a few months after he took office.


Ah HA!
And NOW you realize what a commie-Lib, socialist Mao-mother***** he is, and how WRONG you were to support him & his brownshirt cause! You realize NOW that Bush was just a good guy doing what he believed to be right for all freedom-loving, dictator-hating standup Americans!!!

*snaps out of it*

Uhhhhhh...AURaptor....What?

HOLY CRAP!! I thing I just got a touch of 'Rappy's Syndrome!!!
Silly me... I shouldn't post after I get hit WITH A VERY LARGE ANVIL!



The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:35 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Washnwear and Oppyh,

Thanks for those unprompted comments

I don't mean nothing personal when I call people idiots even though I'm sure it comes across that way.

Yes. I thought Bush was the worst president we've ever had. I have a long history of posts to proove that. This is something altogether different though. What I liked about Bush was that nobody trusted or liked him. His every move was scrutinized.

O'Bama has put us on the fast track to ruin and all we read about is their new dog, or their trip to Broadway that would have cost me 8 years of my life savings to pay for, or the fact that he made ammends by paying for a trip to Paris, or the fact that J Crew stock was in the stratosphere when Ms. O and the little tykes were wearing outfits fashioned by them.

What danger lurks beneath. It may be easy to think that most Americans are aware of what's all going on by posting here frequently, but I think we're a more informed bunch than the majority.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 2:48 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I think we're a more informed bunch than the majority.


Definitely, 6ix.

HEY! Get off my neck!!
It's T-Negative anyway!!!


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:34 PM

WASHNWEAR


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I was Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Obama-right-or-wrong cheerleader (one of Jack's aforementioned "idiots", I guess) 'til a few months after he took office.


Ah HA!
And NOW you realize what a commie-Lib, socialist Mao-mother***** he is, and how WRONG you were to support him & his brownshirt cause! You realize NOW that Bush was just a good guy doing what he believed to be right for all freedom-loving, dictator-hating standup Americans!!!



Wow - it's like you tore the very heart from my still-breathing chest and read aloud to me the words writ thereon. And so forth...

At the moment Obama gets his highest marks from me for his speaking style. And by 'speaking style' I mean his ability to speak in complete sentences and his skillful handling of words in excess of two syllables.

On a somewhat related note, I've noticed lately that a lot of people mispronounce the word 'nuclear'...myself, on occasion, included...but I make up for it by always being extra careful how I say 'Uranus.'



donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:46 PM

WASHNWEAR


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thanks, WNW, for a just about perfect analogy. That's pretty much the same feeling I've got, and I too was an Obamaniac.

As for 6ix, I tend to not take him very seriously most of the time, and he IS an equal-opportunity offender; he doesn't care much for the Bushies either.

Mike



My pleasure. And my I say how much I admire your "Troubled Youth" avatar? It sort of sums up how I feel much of the time.



donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:52 PM

WASHNWEAR


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Washnwear and Oppyh,

Thanks for those unprompted comments

I don't mean nothing personal when I call people idiots even though I'm sure it comes across that way.

Yes. I thought Bush was the worst president we've ever had. I have a long history of posts to proove that. This is something altogether different though. What I liked about Bush was that nobody trusted or liked him. His every move was scrutinized.

O'Bama has put us on the fast track to ruin and all we read about is their new dog, or their trip to Broadway that would have cost me 8 years of my life savings to pay for, or the fact that he made ammends by paying for a trip to Paris, or the fact that J Crew stock was in the stratosphere when Ms. O and the little tykes were wearing outfits fashioned by them.

What danger lurks beneath. It may be easy to think that most Americans are aware of what's all going on by posting here frequently, but I think we're a more informed bunch than the majority.



You make a good point that's real easy to forget; I think I've seen other here raise it. Any politician that damn witty and urbane needs extra watching, especially when you take into account those fly-killing reflexes of his.



donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:41 AM

RIPWASH


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:


Anyway, whether China backs the US or North Korea will most likely depend on who seems to be the aggressor. China has aspirations, and it also has enough of the US public and private debt to really hurt the US economy if it so chose. If the US was seen as the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage, to show itself willing to square up against the big guys in defence of a smaller weaker nation. It would help to garner political capital through out the region, and among many of the US-unfriendly states (especially Oil producers) that China has been trying to curry favour with, such as Iran. If North Korea were the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage and prove itself a friend to the states with all the inherent economic privilege that could bring.



Couldn't agree more with that assessment, Citizen. Seems the only real way for the U.S. to "win" in this situation is by simply refusing to play, or waiting for North Korea to overplay its hand.



Here's a question I have and perhaps someone here can enlighten me.

Does this N. Korean "mystery" ship cause any other country any degree of alarm or apprehension? And I mean in the way that it has apparently caused the U.S. more than a little concern. I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened. But still . . . The way I understand it is the UN has given the U.S. authority to board the ship and search it's contents if it is felt to be neccesary. But . . . why us? Why do WE have to be the ones to be shadowing this ship and possibly board it to find out exactly what they have on board? Why put the U.S. in that position if we are so hated around the globe?

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:21 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by RIPWash:
Here's a question I have and perhaps someone here can enlighten me.

Does this N. Korean "mystery" ship cause any other country any degree of alarm or apprehension? And I mean in the way that it has apparently caused the U.S. more than a little concern. I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened. But still . . . The way I understand it is the UN has given the U.S. authority to board the ship and search it's contents if it is felt to be neccesary. But . . . why us? Why do WE have to be the ones to be shadowing this ship and possibly board it to find out exactly what they have on board? Why put the U.S. in that position if we are so hated around the globe?


Because the US wanted to be put in that position.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:28 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened.


I'm curious; how many missiles do you suppose WE have pointed at THEM? Do you think THEY might feel "threatened", too?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:29 AM

RIPWASH


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened.


I'm curious; how many missiles do you suppose WE have pointed at THEM? Do you think THEY might feel "threatened", too?




Good question...

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:48 PM

ODESSA762


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened.


I'm curious; how many missiles do you suppose WE have pointed at THEM? Do you think THEY might feel "threatened", too?




The difference is 'WE' are predictable while 'THEY' are not. That NK boss is kinda crazy, man. Who know's what 'THEY' will do? On the other hand, everybody knows that 'WE' won't do anything without being provolked by 'THEM' first.

We are 'shadowing' this NK ship for the UN in order to control/prevent nuclear proliferation. The 'July 4 Missile' thing is a slightly seperate issue.

It is in our best interest to stop and board that ship in order to determine wheather or not it has nuclear material on board.

No matter who is in 'The Big Chair', the US will always be a target. It is our leadership's responsibility to stop our enemies from attacking us...and in order to do that they need to be pro-active. Watch and see - that ship will get boarded right after the NK's launch that 'July 4th' missile. That's all the excuse we will need.

As for President Obama ... meh, I'm not too happy/impressed (...and I thought Bush spent
$$$ like a drunken sailor, HA!) ... and I'll leave it at that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:50 - 3410 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL